Complaints

This profile includes complaints for Real Property Management Colorado LLC's headquarters and its corporate-owned locations. To view all corporate locations, see Find Local Branches.

close

Find a Location

Real Property Management Colorado LLC has 3 locations, listed below.

*This company may be headquartered in or have additional locations in another country. Please click on the country abbreviation in the search box below to change to a different country location.

BBB accredited

Near

Country

USUnited States

Please enter a valid location.

Filter

• 

  Real Property Management Colorado LLC

  3600 S Yosemite St Ste 120 Denver, CO 80237-1821

  
• 

  Real Property Management Colorado LLC

  1635 Foxtrail Dr PMB 225 Loveland, CO 80538-9086

• 

  Real Property Management Colorado LLC

  7222 Commerce Center Dr Ste 220 Colorado Springs, CO 80919-2631

The complaint text that is displayed might not represent all complaints filed with BBB. Some consumers may elect to not publish the details of their complaints, some complaints may not meet BBB's standards for publication, or BBB may display a portion of complaints when a high volume is received for a particular business.

• Initial Complaint

  Date:05/30/2025

  Type:Service or Repair Issues
  Status:

  AnsweredMore info

  Complaint statuses

  Resolved:

  The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.

  Unresolved:

  The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.

  Answered:

  The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.

  Unanswered:

  The business failed to respond to the dispute.

  Unpursuable:

  BBB is unable to locate the business.

  The company has ignored several maintenance issues, with the largest and most recent being a substantial roof leak that has caused water to flood into and pool up on the floor of a toddler's bedroom. Upon contacting the emergency maintenance phone number when this originally occurred, it took over two days to get a response from the company. Since that time they have not begun and remediation work , refused to conduct mold tests, and have offered no solution to the problem nor any credit or concession for the unlivable conditions. It has been nearly a week since this last issue occurred, and given the amount of water intrusion there is almost certainly an accumulation of mold. The company has continued to be non-responsive and dismissive, despite numerous stated concerns about the health and safety of those living in the unit.

  

  Business Response

  Date: 06/02/2025

  We have reviewed the complaint and we respectfully disagree.  It has been communicated to all parties involved that the *** has ultimate jurisdiction over these challenges.  We have been working to get resolve with them and have communicated that to the owners of the property and the tenants as well.  We can only do what we can do within our purview and that has been communicated in no uncertain terms.  The tenants have been working with our leasing and maintenance teams regarding alternate arrangements.

  Customer Answer

  Date: 06/02/2025

   
  Complaint: 23399728
  
  I am rejecting this response because: The *** has no jurisdiction over whether or not you are completing mold testing, and they have no jurisdiction over the several issues inside of the unit that have been neglected since move-in. The *** is not the reason why there was no answer on the emergency maintenance line and that it took multiple days for you to even come look at the problem. I have been a multifamily asset manager for nearly ten years, so I am fully aware of how issues like this should be properly handled, and your company has been far from that. You have continued to keep a young family in unlivable and very likely unhealthy living conditions, and have opened yourself to a lawsuit in doing so.
  
  Sincerely,
  
  ***** ******

• Initial Complaint

  Date:04/22/2025

  Type:Delivery Issues
  Status:

  AnsweredMore info

  Complaint statuses

  Resolved:

  The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.

  Unresolved:

  The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.

  Answered:

  The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.

  Unanswered:

  The business failed to respond to the dispute.

  Unpursuable:

  BBB is unable to locate the business.

  After renewing my lease, I received a message at 10:30pm from ******* at Real Property Mgmt of the Rockies demanding an additional $100 that I did not agree to.This must stop. They have a habit of demanding payment for surprise arbitrary fees, while being slow to fix heating issues, which increased my electric bill by $200 this winter.I expect them to reimburse me for the extra heating expenses, and to cancel the $100 "lease renewal" fee. I also want them to stop sending me text messages demanding money after business hours.

  

  Business Response

  Date: 04/24/2025

  Many thanks for reaching out.  We are actually Real Property Management Colorado, a different company than Real Property Management of the Rockies.  You will need to reach out to them directly as we are different companies.  Sorry we can't be more of assistance here and have a super day!

• Initial Complaint

  Date:01/16/2025

  Type:Billing Issues
  Status:

  AnsweredMore info

  Complaint statuses

  Resolved:

  The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.

  Unresolved:

  The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.

  Answered:

  The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.

  Unanswered:

  The business failed to respond to the dispute.

  Unpursuable:

  BBB is unable to locate the business.

  I have cancelled the scheduled periodic site visits for my rental property. Although they confirmed these visits were cancelled, they continue to conduct them. They performed one in May 2024, for which they eventually refunded the payment after several emails. They also assured me that this would not happen again. However, they subsequently conducted another site visit in August 2024 and another in November 2024. After numerous emails, they refunded one of these payments and again confirmed the cancellation of the visits. Yet, they proceeded with another site visit in January 2025. It seems they are not honoring my requests and continue to charge for a service I have cancelled.

  

  Business Response

  Date: 01/31/2025

  We have responded to this complaint prior and shortly after that response, our team has tried on numerous occasions to contact the client.  Please reach back to ******* ****, who heads up our Maintenance department.  Many thanks and have a super weekend!

• Initial Complaint

  Date:09/19/2024

  Type:Service or Repair Issues
  Status:

  AnsweredMore info

  Complaint statuses

  Resolved:

  The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.

  Unresolved:

  The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.

  Answered:

  The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.

  Unanswered:

  The business failed to respond to the dispute.

  Unpursuable:

  BBB is unable to locate the business.

  This business is a scam, Im a renter and the property was never ready. They say Colorado ** is not mandatory, but this house is 2 floors and no basement , after I move in the first day ** broke down and it takes total 3 months for the ** finally get fixed . Its super hot in the house and there is no way to put up a portable ** , house is like a steam room and I have a 1 month new born . There is no way to live because the ** is the only source for house to be cool down. And owner thinks the companys vendor is too expensive so owner hire its own vendor to come on 12th July , but when finally vendor arrived the owner disappeared . There was no way to contact the owner to get approval for fix up . We couldnt wait any longer , thought the owner sent the vendor must trust the vendor . We paid for the fix up fee and now owner wont give reimbursement, this business is also really toxic and wont do anything except be mean to us.

  

  Business Response

  Date: 09/20/2024

  We have received this complaint and as was communicated prior, we are very sorry this process took so long.  We were ready to address this issue when it happened but the owner of the property chose to go a different direction which we could not control.  Have a super weekend!

• Initial Complaint

  Date:09/16/2024

  Type:Service or Repair Issues
  Status:

  AnsweredMore info

  Complaint statuses

  Resolved:

  The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.

  Unresolved:

  The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.

  Answered:

  The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.

  Unanswered:

  The business failed to respond to the dispute.

  Unpursuable:

  BBB is unable to locate the business.

  Start: 7/28/24-Notified by RPM of plumbing backup in basement @ rental property, & if anything needed beyond scope of contact (over $300.00) they would contact for approval. 7/29-Receive same info from RPM as 7/28. No contact from RPM till 8/6 telling me there where tree roots in main ********* would need replaced & tenant displaced. While responding to figure out displacement was notified that tenant was/had been in lease violation with unauthorized occupants for an extended period, despite inspections by ********** refused displacement. RPM allowed them to remain in house & to continue damaging property. 8/7-I find out via online portal it was 7/31 before RPM sent plumber to scope line, & was billed $365.85, for this & a return on 8/6. 8/8-Receive estimate from RPM for partial line replacement & that it would require 2+ weeks displacement. 8/9-Sent own vendor, 8/12 complete sewer line replacement to city pipe. 8/19-Receive estimate for "reconstruction work" for $19,445.48, included as "Additional Information" was "the bill for mitigation is being processed. ...**** is almost same in value to this repairs estimate." This is first mention of any mitigation. 8/22-Receive e-mail & demanding payment of $19,894.57 worth of "mitigation" that was never approved, mentioned or documented. 8/22-Recieve notice that tenant intends to vacate the property on 9/22. 8/23-Receive copy of "mitigation" document, which classifies itself as an "estimate" with a total of $14,416.36. 9/4-"Mitigation" bill posts in portal dated 8/20. 9/9-RPM confiscates rental payment from tenant ($1669.59), despite knowing this is in dispute. 9/16-I still have no timeline of events from RPM regarding situation, what was done when, or why they allowed tenant to remain, despite many inquiries. Rental/Lease violations:11, point 3 & 12 (Unauthorized tenant) / 17 (Continued usage) / 25 (termination for repairs). Management Violation: 4 (maintenance authorization over $300) / 17 (eviction protection)

  

  Business Response

  Date: 09/17/2024

  We have received the complaint from Mr ***** and we respectfully disagree.  These maintenance issues were addressed in a timely fashion in keeping in line with Warranty of Habitability guidelines outlined for Colorado landlords and as such, we don't agree with the refund requested.  If you would like to discuss this further, please reach out to our Director of Maintenance, ******* ****.

  Customer Answer

  Date: 09/19/2024

   
  Complaint: 22293699
  
  I am rejecting this response because:

  I have attempted productive communication with Mr. **** numerous times, and despite repeated requests, he has yet to provide any specific information regarding the timeline of events. Additionally, the one attempt he made lining out the series of events, is incorrect basis evidence from the mitigation estimate. It also contains information which directly contradicts itself.

  We are now 53 days out from the initial occurrence and ******* has still not produced any viable evidence of claims made as to why *** did not first fix the plumbing issue and fix it properly.  Mr. **** has failed to submit any initial pictures justifying the massive expenditures taken without any notice to me.  RPM continued to send the mitigation vendor CRC (4 times) to the property without my knowledge.  Why this was done instead of them sending someone capable fixing the plumbing issue, has still not been answered.  This amassed exorbitant costs, that were ensured to continue due to RPMs failure to address and fix the plumbing issue.  RPM was clearly more focused on the mark-up profit they would make from their continued inaction than fixing the property,or involving me as owner, both of which they are contractually obligated to do. 

  RPMs failure to properly clean the line and fully handle the plumbing, while at the same time allowing the tenant to remain using the malfunctioning system directly resulted in additional damage to the property and the unnecessary escalation of costs.  Responsibility of these costs is the for the account of RPM who failed to properly manage the instance and/or the tenant, who remained using the system, that RPM did not fix.
  

  In addition to the above, no one at RPM has addressed the fact that they allowed for the existence of unauthorized tenants to reside in the house, as it now seems for likely a year. This is despite my payment for periodic inspections in January, and July of 2024.  This allowance of additional unauthorized people in the house contributed additional stress on the house and plumbing system accelerating the damage.     
  
  Sincerely,
  
  ****** *****

  

  Business Response

  Date: 09/27/2024

  We respectfully disagree with what is being outlined here and please feel free to reach out to ******* **** with any further clarification.

  Customer Answer

  Date: 09/27/2024

   
  Complaint: 22293699
  
  I am rejecting this response because:
  I have previously been in contact with Mr. **** and to date he has not answered or addressed the many of the concerns. 
  
  Since my last message to BBB, Mr. **** sent communication outside of the context of the registered complaint.  The following is his message along with my response which includes dates, times, and quotes of actual correspondence that had occurred before the BBB submittal.  You can clearly see, contradictions, inconsistencies,and items that remain unanswered or not addressed.  I am also submitting a full copy of email correspondence with Mr. *********** (****-***** Correspondence 092724.pdf)
  
  
  
  From: ******* **** <***************************************************************************>
  To: "**************************"<**************************>
  Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2024 at 11:53:37 AM MDT
  Subject: Re: ******************************
  
  Hello Harley,
  I appreciate your attention to the various matters at hand, and I want to address your concerns while clarifying a few misunderstandings.
  First, your requests have primarily focused on the mitigation work that was completed at your property, which has an outstanding balance. To date, you have not requested any information regarding the plumbing vendor or their timeline.Its important to note that you were provided with detailed photos and a report from the mitigation vendor, which accurately document the completed work. Your claim that documentation has not been provided is simply inaccurate.
  In regards to the nature of my responses, I must clarify that they have been specific to your situation. Dismissing them as generic is both unproductive and unfair. It seems that you are misinterpreting the terms of the management agreement and trying to shift responsibility for the sewage backup onto either the resident or RPM. However, the root cause of the issue tree roots in your mainline is neither RPMs nor the resident's responsibility.
  Regarding the unauthorized resident, as I previously mentioned, without sufficient evidence, we cannot proceed with eviction. This matter cannot move forward based on assumptions alone, as any legal process requires proof.
  Your frustration is clear, but it's also important to recognize that had RPM delayed the necessary mitigation, you would likely be questioning why no action was taken. In this situation, we acted promptly to address the sewage water issue in accordance with standard procedures, which is the expectation in cases like this.
  I understand the resident's eagerness to move out given the ******************** in a home affected by multiple sewage backups, with personal belongings damaged, and awaiting necessary reconstruction, is understandably distressing.The root cause remains unresolved, and the responsibility to address the plumbing issue and complete the reconstruction falls on you as the homeowner.
  No one wants to be in this situation, but the fact remains that the sewage backup occurred, and the mitigation work was completed. There is now a balance due that must be settled. If you choose not to fulfill this obligation, we will have no choice but to escalate the matter to collections.
  Thank you for your attention to this matter.
  
  
  Thank you,
  ******* ****
  Senior Director of Maintenance
  
  
  
  
  Here is my response:
  
  Due to the seemingly large extent of work that was completed, I have been asking for details one at a time.  This is because asking too many questions at once seemed as though it was overwhelming for *** and thus unproductive as not all questions were being answered when they were asked.  There is a lot of holes to fill in and information that needs to be sorted out due to the lack of constructive notifications or involvement of ownership while things were happening.
  
  Mr. **** in his last correspondence on 9/19/24 @ 1153 made the statement:
  First, your requests have primarily focused on the mitigation work that was completed at your property, which has an outstanding balance. To date, you have not requested any information regarding the plumbing vendor or their timeline. Its important to note that you were provided with detailed photos and a report from the mitigation vendor, which accurately document the completed work. Your claim that documentation has not been provided is simply inaccurate.
  
  In addressing Mr. ***** specific claim, To date, you have not requested any information regarding the plumbing vendor or their timeline.  Here is a list of the times I have requested this information:
  7/29/24 @ 1753 to ***** ********: The main line needs snaked Please do it right so none of us have to continue
  8/21/24 @ 0956 to ***** ******** ***** ************* have they been there 3 times, there is no record of that to us, just the one visit that needed a bigger machine, on 7/31 then the camera, with no pictures on 8/6 for the estimate on the sewer line replacement?
  8/22/24 @ 1706 to ******* ****: Detailed information regarding all items   I expect ALL requested items to be submitted
  9/4/24 @ 0954 to ******* ****: Why if I was told on 7/29 that there had been a backup at the souse, seemingly on 7/28 did a plumber not go out to the property till 7/31?
  9/5/24 @ 1203 to ******* ****: Why would mitigation be done prior to a plumber clearing the line?
  9/9/24 @ 1233 to ******* ****: There are no pictures in it that indicate anywhere near the severity of the claim regarding inch+ deep of sewage water nor anything that would suggest cleanup be done prior to fixing the issue of the plumbing.
  9/11/24 @ 1439 to ******* ****:
  A full timeline and evidence are of most importance
  I have no problem with the plumber going out, howeverI was told that I would be notified Since this did not happen, I am left to operate with the knowledge that any blockage was cleared
  9/13/24 @ 1646 to ******* ****: where is the detailed correspondence with a plumber being contracted to actually fix the issue?
  
  It should be noted, as I will detail below, that due to no notifications from RPM between 7/30/24 and 8/6/24, I was left to think the problem was fixed initially and properly.  It was on 8/6/24 that we found out of another backup, it was 8/8/24, that I received recommendations of the main line needing replaced.  It was 8/13/24 that I had the main line fully replaced.  It was not even until 8/19/24 that I found out about mitigation and the failures that had occurred between 7/28/24 and 8/8/24.
  
  The comments, questions and search for information regarding plumbing vendor work and timelines began 7/29/24 at 1753, when I asserted that the main line should be snaked and not a shower, like RPM had done previously.  On 7/30/24 at 0907 I received communication from ***** ******** stating, our licensed professionals will give me an update on what they found, which I will forward to you.
  
  It was not until 8/6/24 at 1540 that any further information was received from RPM. This was again from ***** ******** who stated, There are tree roots growing into the sewage lines at your property. Our vendor was able to scope all of the home sewage lines and needs to return tomorrow with a gigantic machine to scope the rest of the wider sewage lines that connect to the city lines.  The next communication from RPM was 8/8/24 at 1106.  This stated:
  
  8-6 Ran the camera and found the line was backed up again. I pushed the blockage through with my camera.
  8-7 Brought largest cable machine and ran the line multiple times starting with a single blade and ending with a large double blade. Ran camera and located damaged area.
  
  Here directly lies the issue, it took RPM from an initial backup on 7/28/24 until 8/7/24, a period of 10 days to have a vendor on site capable of cleaning the main line, something which I asserted needed to be done when I found out about the issue on 7/29/24.  This failure to address the real issue at hand and scope the main line resulted in additional damage to the property, and a significant expenditure on items that I as owner was unnotified of.
  
  With the notification on 8/8/24, it was recommended that the main line from the house to the street be replaced and a very basic bid, with no photographic or video documentation of the line or specifics, was submitted for the work.  This left many questions that I submitted the same day.  I was told at that time that RPM would need to source those answers. I was also told that the process would require displacement of the tenants for likely a 2-week period to deal with the scheduling, excavation,pipe replacement and backfill. 
  
  At this point, I notified RPM that I would be sending out my own vendor to evaluate the situation.  I had a reputable company there at the property on 8/9/24 which provided me with video of the condition of the line and comprehensive estimates and options. It is evident in this video, that there was no damage significant enough that a properly cleaned line on 7/28/24,or if needed 7/29/24, would have backed up again for an extended period.  I recognized with the video that for the long-term health and wellbeing of the property, the line should be replaced, but in no way with a proper cleaning should it have backed up multiple times in 10 days requiring the disputed operations that RPM did.
  On 8/13/24 the main line was replaced in totality to the city connection in the street without any overnight loss of plumbing to the house. On 8/14/24 my vendor returned and completed the lining of the new line, and the project was finished.  By doing this without any loss of overnight plumbing versus the estimated 2 weeks that we were quote by your vendor there was a significant difference and reduction of stress on the tenant who was fighting the fact of any need for displacement.
  
  While this was going on, I put in a claim with my insurance company, basis the information I had been provided by RPM.  As of 8/13/24 they did find the back-up to be a covered claim and with the details of and measurements of the propertys basement returned with an estimate that included Restoration/Service/Remodel to all be able to be fully completed for a total of $4,263.62.
  
  The next contact I received from RPM was on 8/19/24, which was an Estimate Approval Request. At some point it seems as though RPM sent an unknown vendor to the property to establish a reconstruction estimate.  This estimate was for a total of $19,445.48.  In a section at the bottom of the estimate was the following note:
  
  
  Additional Information
  Hello, *PLEASE NOTE: The current bill for mitigation is being processed. This is for the sewage mitigation services that kept coming up. The current bill is almost the same in value to this repairs estimate, please be advised for financing when reviewing this estimate. 
  
  This was the very first indication that any mitigation had occurred.  Given the information I had received from insurance, I inquired of RPM for more details. Additionally, I submitted the reconstruction estimate as received to insurance for their review.  This was the response on 8/20/24:
  
  **** has received a $19,445.48 email that has no supporting documentation or photographs. This communication does not provide any measurements, reading, photographs depicting the damage or supporting documentation from a water mitigation company. Please advise your property manager ***** ******** of the information needed. Thank you.
  
  This info was communicated to ***** ******** on 8/20/24, and she responded at 1353 stating the sewage mitigation team was out there about three times since I began helping.  On 8/21/24 at 0956 I began to inquire for more details regarding the situation as a whole and ******* was first included in the conversation.
  
  On 8/22/24 at 1255, I received notice that the tenant had given notice to RPM that they intended to vacate the property on 9/22/24.
  
  On 8/22/24 at 1645 I received an initial email form Mr. **** simply containing the following, still without detail:
  RPM recently completed Work Orders:
  ******: 8/20-Mitigation. $19,894.57; Trip charge: $29.95; Total: $19,924.52,*****************
  
  RPM requests payment via your portal in the amount of $19,924.52.
  
  In response on 8/22/24 at 1706, the following was requested:
  Detailed information regarding all items previously requested will be required as being submitted not only to myself but my insurance as well. Dates and times of service, pictures,measurements, documentation of effected areas, detailed and itemized reports of all work conducted including photographic evidence of need and remedy, loss reports, moisture readings and documentation of all said items. Documentation of who the company responsible for having done the work, along with documentation of licenses, and insurance for said work completed.   (emphasis added)
  
  On 8/23/24 @ 1244 **** ******* sent over a document from Commercial Restoration Company.  It classifies itself in multiple locations as an Estimate and is lacking in items requested by insurance,especially regarding moisture readings, or loss reports.  Outside of time stamps on pictures there is now itemization of what was done by date or when.  Costs listed are under a category of Replace,which nothing was ever replaced, or repaired. Additionally, the total on the Estimateis for $14,416.36.  This contrasts with the Balance Due that ******* **** posted as being $19,924.52.  As a result on 8/23/24 at 1345, I inquired of Mr. ******* as to why the submitted document was $5,508.16 less than what RPM was charging me. His response on 8/23/24 @ 1415, stated: Please feel free to look on our website for a more detailed breakdown for the maintenance **** ups.For this it was a ****up of 38%.  When visiting the *** website ********************************************* there is no indication anywhere on the page, of a 38% ****up for any item.  There, however, is a section that states Bid Markups, defined by: Flat rate estimates where labor or parts are not disclosed.  This section details that for a bid >$10,000 the ****up would be 25%.
  
  On 8/27/24 Mr. **** corresponded with the sole purpose of requesting payment, without addressing the fact that questions remained unanswered, or making any attempt to address them.
  
  An email response from myself to Mr. **** dated 9/4/24 at 0952, I inquired, One question is, why if I was told on 7/29 that there had been a backup at the house, seemingly on 7/28, did a plumber not go out to the property till 7/31?  This was my attempt to better understand the timeline of the plumber.
  The response from Mr. **** at 1151 stated the following:
  
   I wanted to clarify the timeline to ensure we're on the same page. Heres what I have documented:
  
  * Sunday, 07/28/24: A resident reported a sewage backup through the after-hours line, and a plumber was assigned to the work order.
  * Monday, 07/29/24: The work request was reassigned, and a mitigation vendor was dispatched to address the sewage backup.
  * Monday, 07/29/24: A plumber was assigned to clear the main line. On 07/30/24,the vendor successfully cleared the main line. Due to tenant availability, the vendor returned on 08/08/24, ran a camera inspection, and discovered roots in the line. They provided an estimate for excavation and repairs, which was ultimately declined.
  
  Additionally:
  * The mitigation vendor, CRC, made four return visits to the home as the issue persisted due to the roots in the line.
  * From my understanding, the resident declined relocation and remained in the home, which may have contributed to the recurring backups.
  
  The contradictions and issues regarding the above communication are numerous:
  Monday, 07/29/24: The work request was reassigned, a mitigation vendor was dispatched to address the sewage backup.
  This contradicts the Estimate document form CRC as the first pictures are dated 07/28/24. 
  A plumber was assigned to clear the main line. On 07/30/24, the vendor successfully cleared the main line.
  This contradicts the information from ***** ******** on 8/6/24 at 1540 that stated as of 8/6/2024: Our vendor was able to scope all of the home sewage lines and needs to return tomorrow with a gigantic machine to scope the rest of the wider sewage lines that connect to the city lines. 
  It also contradicts what seems to be the plumber comments which clearly present the fact that the main line was not fully addressed or cleaned until 8/7/24:
  8-6 Ran the camera and found the line was backed up again. I pushed the blockage through with my camera.
  8-7 Brought largest cable machine and ran the line multiple times starting with a single blade and ending with a large double blade. Ran camera and located damaged area. 
  Due to tenant availability, the vendor returned on 08/08/24
  As previously covered, the vendor returned to run the camera inspection 8/6/24, not 8/8/24
  If it was an issue of tenant availability not until 8/8/24 how was the tenant available on 7/29, 7/31, 8/1, 8/2, 8/5, and 8/6 (dates pulled from time stamps on pictures in the *** estimate document) for the mitigation company to enter the property?
  the vendor returned on 08/08/24, ran a camera inspection, and discovered roots in the line.
  As previously covered, the vendor returned to run the camera inspection 8/6/24, not 8/8/24
  As previously pointed out, it was not until 8/6/24 that the vendor discovered roots in the main line, thus any statement of the main line being cleared before that date would be false.
  The mitigation vendor, CRC, made four return visits to the home as the issue persisted due to the roots in the line.
  As previously pointed out this is in clear contradiction to any statement regarding the fact that the main line had been cleaned. 
  It is, however, a confirmation from Mr. ***** that the main line had not been properly cleaned.  This is despite my assertion and direction to RPM on 7/29/24 at 1733 stating: The main line needs snaked. Please do it right.
  
  In follow up to Mr. ***** on 9/5/24 at 1204, I inquired Why would mitigation be done prior to a plumber clearing the line?  Mr. **** responded at 1505 with the following:
  
  We had to begin the mitigation process to prevent further damage to the property and to remove the sewage water, as the plumber would not be able to work in inch+ deep sewage water. Once the mitigation was completed, the plumber was able to return the following day to clear the main line. The same plumber returned on 08/08/24 to scope the line, discovered roots, and then rotor the line.
  
  The contradictions and issues regarding the above communication continue.
  We had to begin the mitigation process to prevent further damage to the property
  While I can understand this in a single initial instance, as soon as there is a clean up done the main line is what needed to be cleaned out to prevent any further damage to the property.  RPMs continued failure to clean the main line is what caused the damage and unnecessary expense.
  the plumber would not be able to work in inch+ deep sewage water. 
  In review of all pictures included in the Estimate document received on 8/23/24 via **** ******* from CRC (These are the only pictures that have been provided regarding anything related.), there is no evidence of inch+ deep sewage water.  This is especially true for any pictures dated 7/28/24 or 7/29/24.  There are some damp and glistening spots, yes, there however is no standing water, much less inch+ deep sewage water.
  Once the mitigation was completed, the plumber was able to return the following day
  According to pictures CRC was there mitigating on 7/28/24, if the plumber did return the following day they would have been there on 7/29/24, yet they didnt get there till 7/30/24.
  It was also not until 8/7 that they cleared the main line.
  Once the mitigation was completed, the plumber was able to return the following day to clear the main line.
  As previously pointed out, it was not until 8/6/24 that the vendor put a camera in the main line to find the blockage.
  As previously pointed out, it was not until 8/7 that the vendor cleared the main line.
  
  In response to the above I asked Mr. **** on 9/6/24 at 1245:
  Can you please send over the photographic evidence regarding your statement of "inch+ deep sewage water" Nothing that has been made available to me suggests anything of the sort.
  Also, if in fact the back up in the basement was so bad that the tenant could not reside in the living quarters upstairs, why was the tenant not displaced to a hotel?
  
  Mr. **** responded on 9/6/24 at 1349 with the following:   
  We offered to relocate the resident, but they chose to remain in the home. Attached are photos provided by the mitigation vendor that document the affected areas. As you can see, the back-up impacted multiple rooms, and the images show the extent of the damage (see photos in the attached vendor invoice*).
  While the vendor may not have additional photos beyond what has been provided,we can certainly inquire if there are any more. By the time the vendor arrived,the water had already spread throughout the affected rooms. Although the photos may not perfectly capture the volume of sewage water, they do clearly indicate that a significant amount of sewage made its way through the home.
  * Note: There was no attachment with the email, but I already had the document from  
    Mr. *******.
  
  At this point communication with Mr. **** has continued in a back-and-forth method, but I have yet to receive any additional items like pictures or actual timelines from RPM.  I still have not received any explanation as to why the plumber did not properly clean the main line upon the initial occurrence.  They also continue to dismiss the contractual items that exist in regarding my rights as an owner, and the various violations in existence with regard.
  
  The ultimate question remains, why did RPM not hire a plumbing vendor that was capable of properly cleaning the main line in the very first place.  If there is a plumbing backup from the sewer system in a property, the first step should always be to ensure the line gets addressed and properly cleaned and taken care of. If there was a swage backup on 7/28/24, RPM is responsible, to protect the Property or the health or safety of an ordinary Resident, to avoid the suspension of any essential service to the Property (Property Management Agreement Paragraph 4 point 4).  By not properly cleaning the main sewer line to the street at this time RPM failed to fulfil any of these obligations.
  
  Instead, RPM allowed the problem to exist, and proceeded to focus efforts on items that did nothing to actually fix the problem at hand.  This resulted in the accrual of massive, bills for services that did not contribute to fixing the issue, avoiding further damage to the property, or frankly avoiding the suspension of an essential service (properly working sewer line) to the property.  Additionally, this was all done (mitigation), or not done (cleaning the main line) with out notification to or involvement of ownership.
  
  We, Harley ***** ********* ***** the Client and Owners, continue to hold RPM, Managerresponsible for not scoping and clearing the main sewer line quickly post the 7/28/24 backup, despite my instruction to them to do so.  Any and all costs accrued beyond what should have been a single proper clearing of the main line, and a single clean-up, I consider for the account of RPM.  I hold RPM responsible for any further damage that occurred to the property from additional backups caused by RPMs failure to clear the main line in a timely manner, while allowing a malfunctioning system to remain in usage by the tenant.  Additionally, I hold RPM responsible for lost income as a result the property now being without a tenant,due to the fact the tenant moved out due to the mismanagement of the situation by RPM.
  
  
  Sincerely,
  
  ****** *****

  

  Business Response

  Date: 10/09/2024

  ******* **** has been providing information since the beginning and he is glad to continue to do so!  Please feel free to reach out once again!

  Customer Answer

  Date: 10/15/2024

   
  Complaint: 22293699
  
  I am rejecting this response because:
  I have tried to receive information from Mr. **** and he continues to not answer questions, this was detailed in my last communication via this platform.  It was also detailed that many of the statements he has made have been contradictory and incomplete. 

  
  Sincerely,
  
  ****** *****

  

  Business Response

  Date: 10/28/2024

  Those responses have already been addressed by ******* **** and as has been stated prior, you can reach back out to him anytime!

• Initial Complaint

  Date:04/22/2024

  Type:Service or Repair Issues
  Status:

  AnsweredMore info

  Complaint statuses

  Resolved:

  The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.

  Unresolved:

  The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.

  Answered:

  The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.

  Unanswered:

  The business failed to respond to the dispute.

  Unpursuable:

  BBB is unable to locate the business.

  I vested time that I didn't have with this company for two consecutive months. I applied paid their app fee and $2500/deposit and expressed interest in multiple units. Each property is managed by different property managers that keep referring you to the office staff that contradict the information provided by the property manager or their own website. The is a complete disconnect between the office and field managers and their practices are grossly unethical by refusing to: communicate, provide policy documentation, provide grievance process, provide contact information to a superior to intervene and escalate my complaint. Refused to provide "Reasonable Accommodations" approved by the ********** of ************ Every unit I expressed interest "Equal Housing Opportunity" was intercepted, denied or taken off the market without notice or communication any staff. After posting a negative review, I was retaliated against by ***** Director ******** told me to remove it. "If you would please, consider removing the negative review you left of my team; claiming "This experience with your entire process is tragic, deceitful and unprofessional." "We will have to mail these to you, to buy by Colorados banking requirements for management companies like ourselves. Where can we send these funds while we work out the details of your next rental possible rental property?" "We have cancelled the showing. We have printed your check and are holding it at our front desk. You are free to pick this up at your earliest convenience."Contrary to refusing to return a lady's deposit after she waited weeks for lease/keys. She was forced to clean and remove furniture/trash form previous tenant and was told that the police would be called if she returned to the office. She met the actual homeowner that stated he had yet to receive her deposit and had many issues and planning to sue.As a result, I am currently displaced and now homelessness is imminent and detrimental to my health.

  

  Business Response

  Date: 04/23/2024

  We have reviewed the complaint from ****************** and we respectfully disagree.  We have, in no way, discriminated nor retaliated against her.  In fact, ******** and her team have gone well above and beyond to accommodate her, tried helping her get into another property when she missed the security deposit window on the first opportunity, etc.  This is actually a case of our team doing exceedingly more than is expected to help ****************** and we, along with our attorneys, stand prepared to defend ourselves moving forward.  We will gladly cease all communication moving forward per her request.

  Customer Answer

  Date: 04/23/2024

   
  Complaint: 21609056
  
  I am rejecting this response because:
  
  Sincerely,
  
  ***************************

• Initial Complaint

  Date:04/02/2024

  Type:Customer Service Issues
  Status:

  AnsweredMore info

  Complaint statuses

  Resolved:

  The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.

  Unresolved:

  The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.

  Answered:

  The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.

  Unanswered:

  The business failed to respond to the dispute.

  Unpursuable:

  BBB is unable to locate the business.

  Colorado property management group is partaking in illegal practices and misallocating our HOA funds. I have 30 signatures from on site owners if these issues are not addressed within 7 days and not fully fixed within 14 days we will file for **********. The property is never being walked for violations. This needs to be walked every 2 weeks. Non negotiable. They raised our hoa fees 110$ in 2024, without properly showing the payoffs that's paying off. Owners are *********** work orders, and all payments. We want documentation showing the allocation and distribution of funds. I've been calling for 2 months, if our calls are not responded to within 48 hours EVERY TIME we will move forward with arbitration.

  

  Business Response

  Date: 04/03/2024

  We have reviewed this complaint and we don't manage this property or the HOA.  I think this complaint is for another company.

• Initial Complaint

  Date:12/01/2023

  Type:Service or Repair Issues
  Status:

  AnsweredMore info

  Complaint statuses

  Resolved:

  The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.

  Unresolved:

  The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.

  Answered:

  The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.

  Unanswered:

  The business failed to respond to the dispute.

  Unpursuable:

  BBB is unable to locate the business.

  This business is charging me $30 dollars as a "processing fee" every time I pay rent. This is a fairly recent development, to my knowledge, although in my account it shows that it has been happening the entire 6 years I've been renting. I find this incredibly morally unjust to charge someone $30 essentially to pay their bill. Rent is already expensive enough as it is. Furthermore, this company is INCREDIBLY slow to fix broken appliances, resolve issues that affect my standard of living. A third party contractor that recently fixed my dishwasher even said that they are one of the worst rental property management companies as far as fixing issues promptly. Lastly, it is incredibly difficult to reach a real person at this business. They have gotten slightly better at this, but for nearly the entire 6 years, every time I tried to call to ask a question or report an issue my call was sent to a voicemail. I wouldn't get a call back or even acknowledgement that my voicemail was heard.In summary, this company is charging for required transactions, is slow to resolve issues, and is unavailable to hear or resolve tenant issues. My experience with this company has been largely incredibly frustrating.

  

  Business Response

  Date: 12/04/2023

  We have received this complaint and we are sorry there seems to be some confusion.  The payment processing fee is an agreed-upon clause in your lease and helps to cover costs associated with processing rent, bank fee expenses, routine site visits and furnace filter changes, etc.  That has been a part of our lease for a long time to help cover those costs of supporting our residents.  I am very sorry to hear that you've had a difficult time reaching folks at times and please know our Maintenance team is here to serve you day in and day out.  I am glad to hear it's been a bit better of late as the team if very focused on serving our residents and clients.  They can be reached via your portal or by calling the office at ************.  Happy Holidays to you!

• Initial Complaint

  Date:07/12/2023

  Type:Service or Repair Issues
  Status:

  AnsweredMore info

  Complaint statuses

  Resolved:

  The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.

  Unresolved:

  The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.

  Answered:

  The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.

  Unanswered:

  The business failed to respond to the dispute.

  Unpursuable:

  BBB is unable to locate the business.

  My wife and I tried to rent the house at **********************************************************, managed by Real Property Management Colorado, LLC. The advertised rent was $2550 with no pet fees, and they would build a back yard fence. We filled out an application and paid a $110 application fee ($55 each) on June 19th, 2023.On June 21st, they (*******************) informed us that the rent increased to $2790 with a $45 pet fee per month. On June 23rd, they (*******************) told us our application is approved. They also said the fence won't be built. They also said that a security deposit of $3045 would be due by 5pm on June 26th.On June 24th, I asked if we could see the lease, but that the rent is not what was advertised when we paid the application fee. On June 26th, they said they would not provide the lease agreement to review before we put a deposit down. I replied, "We do not feel comfortable submitting a security deposit before receiving an official leasing agreement to review." On June 26th, I spoke with **** over the phone about not seeing the lease before paying a deposit. And "since we won't have in writing what the deposit is for, the conditions of the deposit, our any gaurentee of monthly rent, we will not be able to move forward in the process. We also were deceived by the advertised rent and that a fence would be installed prior to move in. The rent increased nearly $300 per month after we paid over $100 in application fees. Since our application was for an advertisement that has since changed post-applying, we would request that our application fees be returned in full." I asked for the lease if they want to continue.They (***********************) declined to provide the lease again and canceled our application. I am seeking a $110 refund of our application fee due to Real Property Management Colorado's bad faith advertisement, and a change to their their scam and preditory practice of making people pay a deposit with no written indication for what the deposit is for.

  

  Business Response

  Date: 07/13/2023

  We have reviewed the complaint from ****************** and although we disagree with what has been stated in the complaint, we will gladly refund the application fees as requested.

  Customer Answer

  Date: 07/13/2023

   
  Complaint: 20308535
  
  I am rejecting this response because:

  While I appreciate the application fee refund, just saying that you disagree is vague and does not address my second and integral issue: requiring a deposit before you can provide a lease. 

  It was my understanding while talking to **** is that this is just how your company does business, without exception, and that you do this to each client of the approximately ***** properties you manage. 

  I have attached the template lease that was provided, which gives no indication for term, rent, names, address, pets, and other pertinent information relating to the property. I have no documentation to offer which shows the lack of conditions for a security deposit and deposit refundabililty, because none was provided to me. I have also attached a screenshot from the email I received from ***** stating, "We do not draft leases until a security deposit has been received."

  If ***** is incorrect, please correct me and provide proof to the contrary.

  
  Sincerely,
  
  ***********************

• Initial Complaint

  Date:02/06/2023

  Type:Service or Repair Issues
  Status:

  AnsweredMore info

  Complaint statuses

  Resolved:

  The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.

  Unresolved:

  The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.

  Answered:

  The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.

  Unanswered:

  The business failed to respond to the dispute.

  Unpursuable:

  BBB is unable to locate the business.

  We rented a condo in Colorado ********** and it was never cleaned when we moved in ,the stove was in bad shape got very poor service from them charged us to have someone look at the stove, the repair man said it was bad and they said the repair man said it was fine, not true

  

  Business Response

  Date: 02/07/2023

  Please feel free to call *********************** in our ********************** and he will gladly walk through this!